Meaningful reforms

Published: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.

The 2012 legislative session concluded with enough pressure from the governor's office to get just enough representatives to change their votes on the state budget to pass it. It's been the same story the last three years where the governor submits a budget to the House of Representatives that seems to be balanced, although it's balanced because of the use of one-time money. It must be noted that the governor's own campaign literature stresses the importance of not using one-time money and refers to that practice as fiscally irresponsible.

The 2012-13 fiscal year budget is $25.6 billion, and it included $267 million of one-time money, which is actually money the state does not have in the general fund but is used to pay for recurring expenses. Huh? Here's how it happened:

Fifty-one fiscal conservatives in the House (including myself) voted on an amendment that removed all of the one-time money and went on to recommend to the administration funds it could use to replace one-time money without having to cut higher ed or health care. Instead, the administration cries that if the Senate does not restore the $267 million, higher ed and health care would face major cuts.

In fact, the amount they used to pressure Nicholls was over $7 million in cuts if the one-time money was not restored. As in recent years the Senate not only restored the $267 million but also decided to tap into the rainy day fund for another $200 million.

In the meantime, the governor's office worked over a number of representatives to make sure they now had the votes to pass H.B. 1 when it came back to the House from the Senate and, of course, they did. In the process, deals are cut for those who changed their vote and the governor gets his way, and the state continues to spend money it does not have. So for the time being all is good except for the fact that since the budget was balanced with one-time money, the state will no doubt face mid-year cuts as well as more shortfall next session.

As a fiscal conservative, I believe this state has a spending problem, and until we face the budget shortfall head on, we will not stop the bleeding. This state has never made higher ed its top priority as it should be, and instead of using higher ed and health care as pawns, the administration should prioritize spending and eliminate wasteful spending in state government.

It is well-documented that if the state reduces by 10 percent the amount of consulting contracts it grants and eliminates unfilled positions in state government, the state would save over $250 million per year. If this administration would truly support reform in state government and make the right choices when it comes to spending, we could actually make higher ed and health care the top priorities. We could properly fund the TOPS program and the MFP for K-12 education and would not have to use any one-time money at all. The bottom line on the budget is we have about the same amount of money in the general fund as we did before the hurricanes brought in federal money, so there is no revenue problem. It's a spending problem, and we have to do a better job of prioritizing our needs.

I have tried unsuccessfully the last few years to pass legislation that would reform state government, but because the administration is not in favor, the legislation will not pass. Two bills introduced the last two sessions cleared the House and Government Affairs committee as well as the full House membership dealing with downsizing government.

Together these bills could've saved the state over $250 million, yet neither bill could even muster one vote in the Senate Finance Committee. What's curious is that four members of that committee voted in favor of both bills in last year's session. Both are good government bills, but if they were to pass it, it would remove some authority from the governor's office. I also introduced a bill to not allow legislators to be appointed to any state job for at least two years after leaving the House or the Senate. That bill was sternly deferred by the House and Government Affairs Committee as was another bill that was attempting to change the way the Legislature redraws its boundaries every 10 years. Again, good government bills that would start to bring some trust to state government, but because they also remove powers from the governor's office, they would not see the light of day.

When you elected me to the Legislature over four years ago, I promised to seek change and reform in state government. In fact, most of those legislators who were elected at that same time agreed that changing the perception of the Legislature was needed to regain the trust and respect of our constituents. I am disappointed to admit that in my first five years, we have changed little to reform state government. But I will remain steadfast and will continue to introduce legislation that will, one day, make the needed reforms in state government to move us forward.

<p>The 2012 legislative session concluded with enough pressure from the governor's office to get just enough representatives to change their votes on the state budget to pass it. It's been the same story the last three years where the governor submits a budget to the House of Representatives that seems to be balanced, although it's balanced because of the use of one-time money. It must be noted that the governor's own campaign literature stresses the importance of not using one-time money and refers to that practice as fiscally irresponsible.</p><p>The 2012-13 fiscal year budget is $25.6 billion, and it included $267 million of one-time money, which is actually money the state does not have in the general fund but is used to pay for recurring expenses. Huh? Here's how it happened:</p><p>Fifty-one fiscal conservatives in the House (including myself) voted on an amendment that removed all of the one-time money and went on to recommend to the administration funds it could use to replace one-time money without having to cut higher ed or health care. Instead, the administration cries that if the Senate does not restore the $267 million, higher ed and health care would face major cuts.</p><p>In fact, the amount they used to pressure Nicholls was over $7 million in cuts if the one-time money was not restored. As in recent years the Senate not only restored the $267 million but also decided to tap into the rainy day fund for another $200 million.</p><p>In the meantime, the governor's office worked over a number of representatives to make sure they now had the votes to pass H.B. 1 when it came back to the House from the Senate and, of course, they did. In the process, deals are cut for those who changed their vote and the governor gets his way, and the state continues to spend money it does not have. So for the time being all is good except for the fact that since the budget was balanced with one-time money, the state will no doubt face mid-year cuts as well as more shortfall next session.</p><p>As a fiscal conservative, I believe this state has a spending problem, and until we face the budget shortfall head on, we will not stop the bleeding. This state has never made higher ed its top priority as it should be, and instead of using higher ed and health care as pawns, the administration should prioritize spending and eliminate wasteful spending in state government.</p><p>It is well-documented that if the state reduces by 10 percent the amount of consulting contracts it grants and eliminates unfilled positions in state government, the state would save over $250 million per year. If this administration would truly support reform in state government and make the right choices when it comes to spending, we could actually make higher ed and health care the top priorities. We could properly fund the TOPS program and the MFP for K-12 education and would not have to use any one-time money at all. The bottom line on the budget is we have about the same amount of money in the general fund as we did before the hurricanes brought in federal money, so there is no revenue problem. It's a spending problem, and we have to do a better job of prioritizing our needs.</p><p>I have tried unsuccessfully the last few years to pass legislation that would reform state government, but because the administration is not in favor, the legislation will not pass. Two bills introduced the last two sessions cleared the House and Government Affairs committee as well as the full House membership dealing with downsizing government.</p><p>Together these bills could've saved the state over $250 million, yet neither bill could even muster one vote in the Senate Finance Committee. What's curious is that four members of that committee voted in favor of both bills in last year's session. Both are good government bills, but if they were to pass it, it would remove some authority from the governor's office. I also introduced a bill to not allow legislators to be appointed to any state job for at least two years after leaving the House or the Senate. That bill was sternly deferred by the House and Government Affairs Committee as was another bill that was attempting to change the way the Legislature redraws its boundaries every 10 years. Again, good government bills that would start to bring some trust to state government, but because they also remove powers from the governor's office, they would not see the light of day.</p><p>When you elected me to the Legislature over four years ago, I promised to seek change and reform in state government. In fact, most of those legislators who were elected at that same time agreed that changing the perception of the Legislature was needed to regain the trust and respect of our constituents. I am disappointed to admit that in my first five years, we have changed little to reform state government. But I will remain steadfast and will continue to introduce legislation that will, one day, make the needed reforms in state government to move us forward.</p><p>State Rep. Jerome “Dee” Richard is an independent from Thibodaux.</p>